RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 8:49:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

"If/when"?
They're already doing a lot better than you people as a superpower. Apart from anything else, they still have a manufacturing base...


BINGO!!!


you must be sort of new here, I have been starting threads on this topic for years!
lol



rulemylife -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 9:05:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

Where Obama's logic is wrong is that unlike Saddam Hussein who was killing his own people (kurds being gassed to death), Gaddafi wasn't killing his own people until there was an attempted revolution. That's what happens when you attempt a revolution. People get killed and especially if you hide behind civilians when you're getting your asses kicked.

We have no business getting involved in an attempted revolution and civil war.



So let me understand this, it was ok for us to intervene in Iraq because Saddam was killing his own people but it is not ok for us to intervene in Libya because the people being killed are staging a revolution?

Didn't you just say something about logic?




Edwynn -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 10:38:46 AM)




FR

China as the more successful super power ... interesting.

As is also the claim that in comparing any two countries, the one with the higher percentage of manufacturing portion of GDP equates to the other as having "no manufacturing base."

China has a higher GDP component in manufacturing than Germany also, who itself has a higher percentage of services than manufacturing, - as does every advanced economy - . All the most developed economies have lost some amount of their manufacturing for two reasons; the development of the poorer countries from almost all agrarian to increased manufacturing, with armies of the cheapest labor thus obtained put to the task; the natural progression of the mature economies to take advantage of their more sophisticated abilities in moving towards a higher percentage of services as component of GDP, that having a generally higher ROI in using less resources for a given economic gain.   *

What manufacturing remains in the US and Canada is still significant, people's singlular focus on car manufacturing in one location alone as the only gauge of that notwithstanding, and the manufacturing in these early-stage emerging economies, most especially China, are anywhere from 2-4 times less efficient and 2-4 times more environmentally damaging as compared to the countries with a manufacturing history. At present the emphasis is in getting these plants up and running at the lowest cost possible, which explains the inefficiency and greater environmental impact, being that better process manufacturing and better machines have a higher initial cost for improvement in performance of either. All that revenue from exports is being used to hoard dollar assets and keep the renmimbi at the current low export-friendly value, which they feel to be more cost advantageous than investing in the better performing machines, etc.


* I almost overlooked a third and very important reason for "reduced manufacturing base." At the end of the second world war, there was much manufacturing needed to rebuild in Europe, and in N America, after a few mild recession hiccups, there was realized the large advantage to an economy from reallocating resources from armaments to providing the needs of society. The engineers were freed up to to this new task, and it should be expected that after some decades of that, this engineering class would gradually find their way to more efficient processes, the result oftentimes being one or several manufacturing steps eliminated, hence less manufacturing for a given output, or "reduced manufacturing base" as some would put it. 







Moonhead -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 11:51:46 AM)

It's not just the manufacturing base, if you want to get pedantic: there's also that "world's biggest land army" thing as well.
Is it worth mentioning that however inefficient their manufacturing might be, it's certainly adequate to drain a lot of Walmart's and Apple's expenses out of your country.?



mnottertail -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 11:55:57 AM)

No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I am peppered, I warrant, for this world. — A plague o' both your houses!


General Welfare (promoted)



Edwynn -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 12:26:13 PM)





Inefficiency of process and machinery is of little concern when labor cost is the lowest item on the bill, by far, and 10-20 times lower than in countries being exported to, your estimation of the 'prowess' of such a country thereby notwithstanding. Low total manuf. cost - and - artificially low renmimbi is what begets the Walmarts, etc. Also, I did not realize that the US was the only Western recipient of Chines goods, as would be implied by having that adduced as evidence of the US being the lesser of the two countries.

Possession of the largest land army has about as much to do total military effectiveness in the modern world as having the largest army of cheap labor to do with per capita GDP or a respectable GINI index, Ch. ~ $7,500 vs. US ~ $47,500 regarding the p/c GDP.

But then I'm used those who prefer rock throwing to facts accusing me of being "pedantic" when I intrude upon a discussion with the latter.








Moonhead -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 12:33:46 PM)

Sorry: I wasn't trying to imply that yours was the only country that's outsourced most of its manufacturing to China. That would (as you say) be a completely ridiculous claim to make.
Of course, the biggest advantage China has over you at the moment is the absence of a whopping great deficit, even if you think that their ability to pull the plug on something like two thirds of your electronics manufacturing (something they're very good at, for all the talk of inefficiency) is insignificant. At least you haven't outsourced the military contractors yet.



Edwynn -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 12:46:08 PM)




"At least you haven't outsourced the military contractors yet."


Close to it.


After much shuffling of mergers and acquisitions amoungst arms manufacturers, a UK company is the largest producer for the US military, on paper, or has the greatest percentage of ownership in these companies to put it another way, but of course with most of the manufacturing itself still done in place.

That's the modern international corporate scheme of things, and this also explains much of the trade deficit, the large foreign ownership of domestic manufacturing and services (Toyota in Tennessee, BMW in SC, etc.).

The REAL advantage that China, Japan, Germany, Sweden, etc. have over the US is that they know how to save, either before or along with spending.

That explains all the foreign ownership, hence much of the trade deficit, because US citizens do not save enough for us to actually own much of the manufacturing we still have within our boarders.










Edwynn -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 12:47:11 PM)



~ edit boo boo, sorry ~




FatDomDaddy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 12:58:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk

I get the Pacific war. How about Europe? Why'd we go? Our dog wasn't in that fight. Sure a few million people were slaughtered....but did it effect us? No...-




I suspect the fact the Germany and Italy declared war on the United States first, had something to do with it.


So that was the reason we were supplying the British?


No, because we declared War on Japan. Germany had a mutual defense pact with Japan.

However, one of Churchill's biggest fear was that Germany would renege on his obligation to that treaty and force the United States hand toward Europe, something that might have taken several more crucial months, if at all.  Germany up to that point, even in the face of lend-lease and the United States leaking its Rainbow Five Europe Strategies, still kept a policy of appeasement as far as The United States was concerned right up until Pearl Harbor.



mnottertail -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 1:03:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Possession of the largest land army has about as much to do total military effectiveness in the modern world as having the largest army of

cheap labor to do with per capita GDP or a respectable GINI index, Ch. ~ $7,500 vs. US ~ $47,500 regarding the p/c GDP.

But then I'm used those who prefer rock throwing to facts accusing me of being "pedantic" when I intrude upon a discussion with the latter.


Some self-appointed guardians of the nations business have assured me that if we give large corporations tax breaks the jobs they will create in America will have us in a land of plenty in no time.
(see bold underlined text)

Then they lay the second paragraph on me when I tell them that the idea that an extra few $K in tax breaks (of which they are not paying the bracketed amount now.....) ain't gonna be sticking a handle on it.


I am not feeling guilty about the berating I get. But they will never feel stupid either, which is sort of sad.



popeye1250 -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 1:10:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Possession of the largest land army has about as much to do total military effectiveness in the modern world as having the largest army of

cheap labor to do with per capita GDP or a respectable GINI index, Ch. ~ $7,500 vs. US ~ $47,500 regarding the p/c GDP.

But then I'm used those who prefer rock throwing to facts accusing me of being "pedantic" when I intrude upon a discussion with the latter.


Some self-appointed guardians of the nations business have assured me that if we give large corporations tax breaks the jobs they will create in America will have us in a land of plenty in no time.
(see bold underlined text)

Then they lay the second paragraph on me when I tell them that the idea that an extra few $K in tax breaks (of which they are not paying the bracketed amount now.....) ain't gonna be sticking a handle on it.


I am not feeling guilty about the berating I get. But they will never feel stupid either, which is sort of sad.




So,.....does that mean we can put you in the "For" column in the "Perpetual Wars" category?



mnottertail -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 1:12:16 PM)

No, and why do you do that?  What the fuck don't you understand about the english fuckin language?

Does this mean that you are ashamed of backing into a government paycheck that you didn't deserve and you are going to repay it?



Moonhead -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 1:15:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

"At least you haven't outsourced the military contractors yet."


Close to it.


After much shuffling of mergers and acquisitions amoungst arms manufacturers, a UK company is the largest producer for the US military, on paper, or has the greatest percentage of ownership in these companies to put it another way, but of course with most of the manufacturing itself still done in place.

That's the modern international corporate scheme of things, and this also explains much of the trade deficit, the large foreign ownership of domestic manufacturing and services (Toyota in Tennessee, BMW in SC, etc.).

The REAL advantage that China, Japan, Germany, Sweden, etc. have over the US is that they know how to save, either before or along with spending.

That explains all the foreign ownership, hence much of the trade deficit, because US citizens do not save enough for us to actually own much of the manufacturing we still have within our boarders.


Is that BOAC? I knew they had some holdings in the 'States, but I didn't realise they were that pervasive.
To be honest I was thinking more of the fact (which you refer to yourself) that you've kept most of the manufacture of military hardware in the 'States, rather than outsourcing any of that. Even if a foreign company does own a good chunk of the various contractors, they'll probably have more sense than to ship all of the plant and assembly off to India...



Edwynn -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 1:34:46 PM)





quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


Some self-appointed guardians of the nations business have assured me that if we give large corporations tax breaks the jobs they will create in America will have us in a land of plenty in no time.
(see bold underlined text)

Then they lay the second paragraph on me when I tell them that the idea that an extra few $K in tax breaks (of which they are not paying the bracketed amount now.....) ain't gonna be sticking a handle on it.


I am not feeling guilty about the berating I get. But they will never feel stupid either, which is sort of sad.




The politicians spouting this nonsense might be stupid, but the corporate interests feeding them with their reading material are anything but. The latter know full well the detriment to society in enactment of such tax breaks, but that is neither their nor such politicians' concern. There are always a good number of people greatly attracted to such cons, so they worry not too much about those sorts being interested in veracity.

What you might think of doing when people annoy you with such piffle is to direct them to Sweden, not necessarily because they are absolutely the most successful in every economic regard, but because the economic stats of Sweden so perfectly counter every braying these people delude themselves into thinking of as "argument' so perfectly.

Sweden:

Among highest taxes of developed countries, along with; among the highest GINI index, p/c GDP, "quality of life" indexes, GDP per hours worked, high total personal savings, and before the crash had a government surplus, a parental leave regime that does not require mom to quit or have to return to full time after only 6 weeks, dad having more time to help out and let mom work more as the child heads toward grade school, etc. all of which keeps unemployment low and total output being less affected than in other countries., the list goes on ...  And even with the taxes and employer requirements regime, ranks highest of continental European countries, along with Denmark (another similar tax/social benefits country), in the "ease of doing business" ratings.

How do they save so much even with high taxes? The largest answer to this, by far, is that single payer health insurance is immensely more effective and efficient than all-private-insurance-based care, at least as the way the Swedes do it.  Look at the annual bill of typical private health insurance; how do you think both individual and aggregate/national economic conditions would be if half that total went to taxes, and the other half to personal savings?

Bingo. Positive net national savings year after year. Not having to worry about the insurance companies response when you actually hold them to their end of the bargain either.

Much more than all that, even, if we took several pages for it.







wittynamehere -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 1:38:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
Unless the United States is being attacked DIRECTLY, or being threatened of being attacked, why should the United States EVER be involved in any war?

Why should any country?



domiguy -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 6:44:27 PM)

we are not involved in a war with Libya, yet.



Sanity -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 6:52:06 PM)


Right... its not a war, its a "Kinetic Military Action"

[image]http://www.obamabling.com/glitters/3D_peace_gold.gif[/image]



Marini -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 8:50:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
Unless the United States is being attacked DIRECTLY, or being threatened of being attacked, why should the United States EVER be involved in any war?

Why should any country?



lol, I hardly know the answer to that, do you?

As long as there are humans on the earth, there will almost always be some sort of conflict or war.
Isn't that one of the things that human beings do best?

Just like this thread, there are more questions than answers.
[;)]



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Why should the USA be involved in ANY war, unless attacked or threatened? (3/29/2011 9:06:03 PM)

"Instead of going to war with acting in a kinetic military manner toward Libya, we could have spent that money on many great things here at home. For example, we could have:

•Provided private health insurance this year for over 42,000 families;
•Provided 17,000 Americans with jobs;
•Fully paid for about 10,000 students to attend four years at a public university;
•Paid off the state of Oklahoma’s projected 2012 budget short fall.
Of course, President Obama decided that it was far more important to spend this money on military actions against a country that even he acknowledged wasn’t a direct threat to our safety."
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625